RTR 7's progress

[hellas1]

Hi RTR team,

I'm eagerly anticipating RTR 7 as RTR PE simply won't do after what I've seen and played in TIC!

How's progress coming along?

Thank you ladies and gents, hellas1

[Brusilov]

You should have posted that in the following pinned thread; http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101499

[Tony83]

Hi RTR team,

I'm eagerly anticipating RTR 7 as RTR PE simply won't do after what I've seen and played in TIC!

How's progress coming along?

Thank you ladies and gents, hellas1

From what you'll have read elsewhere, you'll have gathered that there are likely to be at least another two mini-campaigns, along the lines of TIC, before the full RTR VII Grand Campaign is released.

However, I'd be interested to know if your main reason for preferring TIC to RTR-PE is down to dynamics. Campaigns that mods such as TIC and 58 BC provide are scripted to provide an intense battle-filled experience over a relatively short number of turns, compared with a full campaign where the pace is more likely to be governed by the gradual build up of your economy and infrastructure.

My own preference is for long term campaigns but, being a mod-whore, I do enjoy the "cold shower" effect of a short bracing campaign from time to time.

[hellas1]

Hi Tony83,

I LOVE the new look which TIC has and I actually wish that the battles were a bit longer as ancient battles were BATTLES not scrapping.

TIC's dynamics, battle and other are just superior. Period.

hellas

@Brusilov,
BTW, sorry for posting in the wrong area. This is where I usually thank the RTR team for their current work and where I've asked how the progress had also gone on past RTR versions as well.

[Candelarius]

As a long time RTR fan, supporter, and occasional member, I really would like to see the team proceed to the RTRVI "grand campaign" rather than focusing on mini-campaigns. Mini-campaigns are okay diversions, but, as M2TW Kingdoms has taught me, they are never as much fun nor as replayable, I feel, than a major grand campaign game. Don't get me wrong, I like the RTR:TIC concept and fully support the team and it's leader, but, RTR just isn't the same to me "without Romans". :-)

[Quinn Inuit]

Normally I'd agree with you, but I think the mini-campaigns (or at least one more) will serve four useful purposes.

First, TIC is a great way to advertise the health of the project, which I'm sure a lot of people have questioned over the years. And it may even have drawn in new talent--I'm not privy to it, so I have no idea if that's happened.

Second, I think a second campaign would be a great place to sandbox some of the tougher things they're working on for the main campaign, especially the supply system. I'm really looking forward to that, partly because it's realistic in a most excellent way and partly because I can't even imagine how they're going to pull it off. It's probably a lot easier to test something like that on a small scale.

Third, there is NO third purpose. None! None at all! There's nothing to see here!

Fourth, the devs probably want to play something, too. As much as I love modding, I do occasionally like to play the game. Fortunately, such moods pass quickly.

Now, to argue against myself, all of those but the second could be served by just one mini-campaign, but the testing is an ongoing process and the map in TIC isn't very complicated in that pretty much all of the action takes place on one land mass. A more complicated land mass would probably make for a tougher sandbox.

Oh, and I forgot something: the smaller campaigns would probably make good teaching tools for those so inclined to use them. TIC would be an amazing lesson in ancient history for anyone who bothered to read the various descriptions, and it sticks closely enough to the actual events to give someone a nice little history lesson.

[Muizer]

I think Quinn summarized the motivation of the team to go for the TIC mini campaign. We really wanted to complete a project from start to finish. To advertise our continued existence, yes, but also to experience all of the stages of completing a mod and learn from it. Remember, most on the team did not have that experience.
We have debriefed after the release of TIC and we will apply the lessons we learned to the next mini-mod. This process allows us to evolve our thinking about gameplay.
Also, I think it is incorrect to present the mini-campaigns and full campaigns as being competitors for the team's attention. Not all aspects of the game require the same amount of development time. For instance, it takes far less time to create a map than it takes to skin all factions that populate it. There's always a bottleneck, but a bottleneck in one area is a surplus in another. That's where the minicampaigns come from.

[Clearchus of Sparta]

I can also tell you that, each time a suggestion is placed in the forums for a feature to be included, the history team look into the historical accuracy of that suggestion (So if you have a suggestion, please quote your sources. It really really helps) Having established its accuracy a proposal for how it could/should work in the game is made. The coders then advise whether its possible or suggest changes based on game engine limitations. The history team will then have to decide to accept changes which may not represent historical accuracy in order to have some limited representation of a historical feature.
I'll try to give a theoretical scenario.
The Roman Senate. Everyone knows there was one. So, a building to represent the Roman Senate is proposed. Historical accuracy is agreed. Now, what benefits should the building posess. Happiness, Law possibly. but not every law passed is going to make the population happy. Do we script some reforms such as the Land reforms, proposed by Gracchus. Should we script an assassination attempt on the leader or any resident character in Rome.
One building would take up an entire building slot and being that these are limited, what might have to be sacrificed. Or can the building be shared across more factions. Does Carthage for example have an equivilent. More research from the History team. (We can use the same building but make it appear to have another name based on faction) Assuming its approved, coders and GFX team get involved. How will it look on screen, How will the AI use this item. This is a big issue in testing. Descriptions are written and checked. Impact of the building on the gameplay is predicted. Revisions are made if necessary and the final item included in the game. The game is then handed to the betatesters to see if everything works as intended. They play as many games as possible with as many variations as possible. (Try that with a Grand Campaign) Any bugs found are reported and hopefully fixed.

The biggest advantage in the mini campaigns for us, lies in being able to test ideas out on a smaller map. It allows us to complete factions in terms of units for example. Unless changes are made, you can say that units for Carthage, Iberia, Celtiberia, Numidia are completed not just for TIC but for the Grand Campaign as well.

As Muizer pointed out, mapping is relatively quick compared to skinning new units to the level of detail we want to bring to you.

So remember, the next time you want to see a particular unit/building included, we may be up to our limit and something has to go in order to accomodate the request. Dont focus on a single particular faction if you can, provide details of the benefits/equivilents for as many factions as possible, where possible.

There are many features we would like to bring into the game but simply cant get the game to cope with the feature realistically, others we'd have to lose something else in its place. What I can promise you is that there will be new features and surprises in both mini campaigns and the grand campaign.

We are making progress on both.